Judgment :- SETHURAMAN, J. These two tax Revision cases arise out of sales-tax assessments for the asst. yrs. 1958-59 and 1961-62. The assessee is a company carrying on business as electrical engineers and contractors. In the assessment for 1958-59 it was claimed that a sum of Rs. 11, 96, 914.72 represented lump sum works contract executed by them for their customers. The assessee entered into agreements for execution of contracts for electrical installations in business and other premises. It appears that initially when the customer approached the assessee for execution of any such contract, it ascertained the customer's requirement by making visits to the work site and studying plan lay-out technical consultants' views, availability of power, future expansion., discussion with architects, civil Engineers, plant Engineers and other allied services. A blue print and lay out was then prepared and got approved by the electric supply authorities. The company has its own staff for watch and ward at the site and also for the execution of the work in the shape of technical and other personnel. The materials were gathered and stored in the respective premises and the erection was commenced in co-ordination with the Civil Engineers, machinery suppliers etc. It is stated that the assessee seldom undertook contracts, which did not involve the erection and commissioning of a sub-station complex. In rare instances, miscellaneous jobs were undertaken; but the receipts therefrom were negligible. 2. With reference to the asst. yr. 1958-59 the assessee had entered into contracts with several persons. The following will give an idea of the evidence available in relation to these contracts. Amount for which contracts are available.Rs. 8, 13, 598.04 Amount for which customer's affidavit are available. Rs. 3, 17, 277.79 Amount for which neither contracts nor affidavits are available. Rs. 1, 14, 314.65 Total Rs. 11, 45, 190.48 Out of Rs. 8, 13, 598 referred to above, a substantial part consisted of a contract for electrical installations in Dunlop company for a sum of Rs. 6, 91, 837.6 5. There are similar contracts for lesser magnitude with other companies like English Electric Co. 3. At this stage we may refer to the type of work undertaken by the assessee for carrying out electrical installations work at the Dunlop (Madras) Plant. It proposed to carry out this work and prepared a lay-out in accordance with the current engineering practice. There are similar contracts for lesser magnitude with other companies like English Electric Co. 3. At this stage we may refer to the type of work undertaken by the assessee for carrying out electrical installations work at the Dunlop (Madras) Plant. It proposed to carry out this work and prepared a lay-out in accordance with the current engineering practice. While offering to install all the equipments, the assessee offered also to have the installation certified by the Chief Electrical Inspector to the Government of Madras and hand over the installation in working order to Dunlop's. On 15th July, 1957, it sent detailed proposals for carrying out the work including supply and erection of transformer and sub-station equipment, motors and control gear, main and feeder cables, distribution gear, lighting and earthling. With reference to the imported equipment, the necessary arrangements for import had to be made by Dunlop's. As regards the erection of equipment for which quotation had been made ex-godown in rupees, erection rates included transport and delivery of equipment at the factory site, erection, testing and handing over. The Company gage a schedule detailing the delivery periods of all the equipment offered with reference to this work. There was correspondence with Dunlop's in which reference was made to the terms of payment. In a letter dt. 27th September, 1957 the assessee wanted 70 per cent of the supply on the erection value to be paid on a monthly account basis when goods were delivered at site; 20 per cent against monthly bills for work completed and certified by the Engineers and the balance of 10 per cent after completion of the work. A programme chart was given on 14th June, 1958. There were discussions as regards the use of naked lights. The Dunlop Company specified that this was a matter for its site Engineer's discretion. In the letter of the 17th December, 1958 to addressed the Dunlop Company, there is discussion of sales tax liability on a portion of the contract relating to the supply of equipment for which the contract provided separate schedule of price. On these the assessee had claimed Madras Sales-tax at the appropriate rate. The erection of the equipment supplied had been billed in accordance with the rates provided in the contract without claiming any sales-tax, as they related to the supply of services. In regard to certain portion of work like cable laying etc. On these the assessee had claimed Madras Sales-tax at the appropriate rate. The erection of the equipment supplied had been billed in accordance with the rates provided in the contract without claiming any sales-tax, as they related to the supply of services. In regard to certain portion of work like cable laying etc. the contract was a lump sum one to cover both cost of materials used and labour involved. It proposed to charge sales-tax, but would withhold the collection subject to the undertaking that the amount would be paid to the assessee if and when the Board of Revenue gave an adverse ruling. The correspondence shows that the work was done in co-operation with the civil and other contractors.Similarly with reference to the English Electric Co. there was a tender called for on 17th July, 1957 by the Architects of that company. The Architects requested that the tender should be submitted in triplicate for electrical installation, giving separately the cost of wiring, fittings and fans. Certain items were to be supplied by the English Electric company and the assessee's quotation was required for fixing them in respective positions including wiring and necessary connections. The fittings were to be as indicated in the plan of the Architects. There are details regarding lighting area to be covered by each light. On 7th August, 1957 the assessee tendered its quotation. One of the conditions imposed was that space was to be provided for storing materials and tools. An itemised statement was sent giving the quotation for supplying and erection of the several equipments. On 9th August, 1957 the assessee pointed out that illumination levels had to be modified in accordance with the modern lighting practice. The modification was with reference to the earlier quotation. There was correspondence with the Architects for the purpose of co-ordinating the works of the Engineers and the Civil Contractors. The Engineering Contractors were Binny's and the Civil Contractors were Southern Constructions (P) Ltd. The work was ultimately completed and the course of the work the Architects gave certain suggestions which had to be adopted. The claim of the assessee was that these contract were works contracts so that the receipts were not liable to be taxed. The Addl. CTO did not accept the assessee's claim that the works viz., supply and installation of electrical goods were indivisible. The claim of the assessee was that these contract were works contracts so that the receipts were not liable to be taxed. The Addl. CTO did not accept the assessee's claim that the works viz., supply and installation of electrical goods were indivisible. According to him, there was no building contract, so that the material supplied and installed became immovable property. In his view, the dealers had been supplying only movable property and had agreed to install the same for the convenience of their customers. He held that these supplies were essentially contracts for supply of goods. He, therefore, brought the amount, claimed as works contracts, to tax. 6. Similarly for the asst. yr. 1961-62 the assessee claimed that there were works contracts to the tune of Rs. 4, 87, 834.30. This was analysed as follows :- Amount for which contracts were available Rs. 3, 33, 366.00 Amount for which customers' affidavit's were available Rs. 1, 39, 181.80 Amount for which neither contracts nor affidavits were available. Rs. 15, 286.50 Total Rs. 4, 87, 834.30 7. The Addl. CTO took the same view as he did for the asst. yr. 1958-59 with reference to this claim. 8. There were appeals before the AAC. He held that this Court in TC. No. 55 of 1960 in the case of Udani Engineering Works had considered that the wiring contracts were liable to tax. He referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in CST vs. Arun Electrics, wherein that Court had held that the supply of goods and the supply of works and labour had formed part of the same contract and that part which constituted the supply of goods for consideration was a sale liable to tax. He, therefore, took the view that the assessee was liable to sales tax with reference to these contracts executed by them. The same result followed the appeal for 1961-62 also. 9. The assessee appealed the Tribunal for each of these years. The Tribunal passed a common order. During the course of the hearing the assessee submitted that it had record with reference to the execution of these contracts. The State Representative was require by the Tribunal to go into these materials and submit a report. He submitted a report with reference to each of these years. The Tribunal passed a common order. During the course of the hearing the assessee submitted that it had record with reference to the execution of these contracts. The State Representative was require by the Tribunal to go into these materials and submit a report. He submitted a report with reference to each of these years. The Tribunal took the view that if a contract had been entered into for fixing detachable electrical goods like fans, fluorescent bulbs etc. which were available for sale from the ready stock of the dealer, then such a contract could not be considered as indivisible works contract. If the fixing of the materials made such materials part and parcel of the fixed asset of the customer, then the property in such goods could be deemed to pass on the theory of accretion. As far as wiring contracts were concerned, it was of the view that such contracts were works contracts. However, where the contract involved supply of goods which were found in the market ready for sale and which were supplied to the customer without making it an undetectable part of the fixed asset, then there was a sale of these goods which was assessable under the Tamil Nadu General ST Act. After considering the report of the State Representative in accordance with that view that the sale of detachable goods involved in such contracts was taxable, it held that a sum of Rs. 2, 59, 003.31 represented sale of items of goods like fans, bulbs, etc. and this was taxable to 4 per cent for the asst. yr. 1958-59 and a sum of Rs. 4, 59, 001 was taxable at 6 per cent for the asst. yr. 1961-62. It, therefore confirmed the assessments with reference to these amounts. 10. In the present appeals by the assessee its learned counsel contended that the view taken by the Tribunal was inconsistent with the decision of this Court in the case of this very assessee in Tax Case No. 57 of 1958. In that case, there was electrical installations works of Rs. 2, 22, 319.95 for the asst. yr. 1957-58. The Tribunal had found that the relevant contract was an indivisible contract and that there was no evidence to show that the goods involved had been sold, as such. However, the Tribunal took the view that a sum of Rs. In that case, there was electrical installations works of Rs. 2, 22, 319.95 for the asst. yr. 1957-58. The Tribunal had found that the relevant contract was an indivisible contract and that there was no evidence to show that the goods involved had been sold, as such. However, the Tribunal took the view that a sum of Rs. 66, 487 representing the value of fans and fluorescent fittings used in the execution of the contracts represented sale of materials. When the mater came up before this Court in a decision rendered on 5th December, 1972 to which one of us is a party, the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Raj. vs. Man Industrial Corporation Limited 1962 (24) STC 349 and State of Raj. vs. Nenuram were noticed. This Court held on a consideration of the relevant terms that the contract was one and indivisible and that the sum of Rs. 66, 487 also represented the value paid under the works contracts so as not to be liable to sales tax. Taking into account the Course of the business of the assessee this Court allowed the assessee's claim, also in respect of case where the contracts, as such, were not available. The point now in issue has been considered in the said case and the relevant test has been propounded therein. Where the contract is one and indivisible, then the whole contract will be treated as works contract notwithstanding the fact that there were supplies of materials like fans and fluorescent lamps in the execution of the said works. 11. The learned counsel for the assessee brought to our notice an unreported decision in TC. Nos. 48 to 50 of 1966 in W.P. Nos. 3136 to 3138 of 1967 dt. 7th December, 1967. In that case the assessee had entered into a contract with the Electricity Board. The execution of the work was with imported materials. The works were to be completed according to drawings and design calculation and they were to be under the supervision of specially trained Italian experts and Indian Engineers. In order to facilitate import by the customer, provision had been made in the contracts for arranging for import licence and also for foreign exchange by the Electricity Board. The works were to be completed according to drawings and design calculation and they were to be under the supervision of specially trained Italian experts and Indian Engineers. In order to facilitate import by the customer, provision had been made in the contracts for arranging for import licence and also for foreign exchange by the Electricity Board. It was held that the contracts had to be read and understood as a whole, that the contracts in that case were for execution of the entire works with materials imported from abroad by the customer, that there was no sale of imported materials and that the entire tenor of the contracts was consistent only with their being contracts for works which did not involve any sale of goods. It may be seen that the point in that decision was slightly different and it turned on the question whether there was a sale of imported goods by the assessee in that case who was a contractor. The decision, as such, was rendered on different facts. In so far as the Court laid down that the contract has to be read and understood as a whole it will have application to the facts of the present case. We are not satisfied that all the facts have been properly considered by the Tribunal. We think it proper to remand the cases for reconsideration by the Tribunal in the light of the decision for the earlier year, and the discussion above. 12. The appeals are allowed accordingly. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 150 in each.